Post by p***@gmail.comWhat is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc....sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdfNothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to theconcept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.

This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdfNothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to theconcept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.

These guys seems to be making good progress.

It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of themeaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.They are using Montague Semantics.

I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/

The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creatinga system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it wouldbe really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdfNothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to theconcept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.

These guys seems to be making good progress.It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of themeaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.They are using Montague Semantics.I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creatinga system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it wouldbe really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.

English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LICmeaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark andthen father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I rememberthat my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light comingthrough under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theoremsas you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tellyour buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works withoutrelativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.

Post by Ruud Harmsenhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#EtymologyCompletely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To mysurprise.)

"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as toits derivations from a number of roots."

https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanicword'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/LowDutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#DanishSwedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.

Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.

Post by Ruud Harmsenhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#EtymologyCompletely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To mysurprise.)

"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as toits derivations from a number of roots."

https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanicword'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/LowDutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#DanishSwedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.

Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.

Yes. I had overlooked but later noticed that the Dutch book says:"en laat-on. lykka zijn ontleend"meaning"and Late Old Norse lykka are loans."

Post by Ruud Harmsenhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#EtymologyCompletely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To mysurprise.)

"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as toits derivations from a number of roots."

https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanicword'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/LowDutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#DanishSwedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.

Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.

Post by Ruud Harmsen"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as toits derivations from a number of roots."

Exactly, and now there is one more root, Magdalenian LIC meaning bothlight Latin lux and English luck. Prime words do not exist, they area phantasm of Pete Oleg aka "the-pete" who returns with his phantasmevery couple of months, hoping to bamboozle someone. Light is not at alla simple thing, being both particle and wave. Having spent a summer dayon a nice walk ending at a lake I radiate heat, invisible infra-red light- is this light or not in Olegian? and what about ultraviolet someanimals can see while we don't? is this light or not? Physically lightand radio waves etc. are electromagnetic waves - are they all light,or not? Pete Oleg lingers on in the heyday of the mechanistic paradigmand Laplace's demon that knew the exact position and state of eachand every particle and was able to calculate every past and any future.That's an illusion we others have long overcome. Neither the physicalworld nor language work that way. More accurate for language is a web logicwe have to develop. This may happen once we have good artificial neuralwebs, not just simulated ones on classical computers.

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdfNothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to theconcept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.

These guys seems to be making good progress.It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of themeaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.They are using Montague Semantics.I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creatinga system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it wouldbe really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.

English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LICmeaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark andthen father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I rememberthat my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light comingthrough under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theoremsas you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tellyour buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works withoutrelativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.

*PARAPHRASE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL ADDING NEW INSIGHTS*In the preface to the book "The Liar an essay on truth and circularity" by Barwise and Etchemendy pointed out that "model theory" disallows"languages containing their own truth predicate and allowing circular reference" because this leads to incoherence.

*THIS IS BRAND NEW MATERIAL THAT I HAVE JUST CREATED*So when the Liar Paradox, the Halting Problem, the Incompleteness Theorem, and the Barber Paradox are all formalized using "model theory" each of these is shown to be merely incoherent.

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdfNothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to theconcept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.

These guys seems to be making good progress.It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of themeaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.They are using Montague Semantics.I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creatinga system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it wouldbe really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.

English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LICmeaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark andthen father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I rememberthat my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light comingthrough under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theoremsas you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tellyour buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works withoutrelativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.

I can now show that the Natural Language form of the famous Incompleteness Theorem is incorrect: "I am not provable" (Kurt Gödel's own words translated from German). Here is the proof for the equivalent Liar Paradox:

sci.langMathematical formalization of the Liar Paradox explicitly showing its incoherence.

Post by p***@gmail.comsci.langMathematical formalization of the Liar Paradox explicitly showing its incoherence.

If you could show that you could prove Gödel wrong, and this would earn youthe Fields medal and Nobel prize rolled in one. But you don't understandGödel's proof; all you prove is that you don't comprehend. Gödel proved histheorems with mathematical logic, while you think you can go on forever(thirty years and counting) with word magic and big empty promises.